P1) Anything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause [A version of PSR]. P2) If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. P3) The universe exists. P4) Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3) P5) Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4).

Defense of Premise 1

Suppose I have a sheet of paper. Where did that come from? I shear leaves. I created it. I am the cause. HOWEVER, suppose I have an apple. Where'd that come from? I planted a seed in fertile land, watered it consistently (Daily basis), it grew into an enormous apple tree, an apple fell from it, and I grabbed it. THAT is natural.

Defense of Premise 2

If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists.

Let's leave P1 alone for now, though I may return to it later as it has problems of its own. Jumping straight into P2. "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." This point and its defense "If something is created, it must have a creator. If something is designed, there must be a designer. The Universe was created. Therefore, God exists." are fallacious for the following reasons.
1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god.
2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy.
3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it.
P2 fails and the argument is not sound.
If I were feeling smarmy, I'd ask Pro to actually defend P3, but this claim is never seriously challenged, and we happen to agree, so moving on.
P4 and P5 Can not stand without the supporting weight of P2, as P2 makes all the assumptions necessary to claim P4 and P5 without defending them. I shall, in the interests of completeness refute them.
P4. "Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3)" Perhaps it does. Perhaps not. This will be brought up during my refutation of P1 if I am required to debate that far. My main contention stemming out of P2, and having refuted it, I feel no need to refute P1 at this time.
P5. "Therefore, the explanation of the existence of the universe is God (from 2, 4)." Since I have refuted P2, P5 does not stand. I should also point out all logical fallacies in P2 are present in P5, which makes sense as P5 really is just an extension of P2.
During my refutation of P1 and P4 (should I go there) I will show the possibility that the universe has no cause, making the entirety of the argument pointless as it's base assertion is that the universe MUST have a cause.

As it stands, the argument is not sound due to the refutation of P2. I wish Pro good luck in round 3.

Pro posts no arguments or defense this round. I extend all my arguments.

Summation of arguments:
P2 "If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God." and its defense are fallacious for the following reasons:
1. Begging the Question: Pro uses the existence of god as a given within a logical argument for the existence of god.
2. God of the Gaps: Pro ignores the possibility of other explanations for the existence of the universe (which there are, both scientific and mythological) but even if there were not, using god as a blind assertion is the definition of this very fallacy.
3. Blind Assertion: I reject Pro's defense of P2 as being unsound, as he simply asserts that the universe was created and designed without providing any argument or evidence to support it.

Once again, my opponent has forfeited his round, leaving me with no arguments to refute or defenses to argue against so I shall extend all my arguments. P2 remains unsound and the Leibnizian Cosmological Argument remains unsound.
Vote Con.

For all monotheistic religions, he is defined as a being that created the Universe and everything in it. The Universe was created, thus must having a cause. Therefore, God created it. Therefore, God exists.

Reasons for voting decision: It seems to me that all cosmological arguments from a Creator are the same and they're all based on logical fallacies. But that's not why victory goes to Con. Pro showed up, then disappeared.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.